There are many advantages of adopting a written constitution in Britain, and there are many pressure groups, political figures, and ordinary people who believe that Britain should have one. Our unwritten constitution is old fashioned, and there is not even an agreement about what it actually contains as it is made up of various conventions, statute laws, and ancient documents. Constitutions are supposed to be the fundamental social compacts by which authority and order are maintained, and so a British written constitution would not only provide a rigid means of protecting the people from the power of the executive, but also prevents the power of the Government from being too centralised, which is presently a major criticism of the Government. Even when she was Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher agreed that the Government power was too centralised, and needed some sort of restraint. A written constitution would set out the relationship between individuals and the Government; it would define the power of the state and its agencies, and say who can do what and where are the limits of power.
Recently, the Government has been accused of decreasing its accountability through various agencies by allowing them to carry out Government policies without the agency directors being held accountable for their mistakes; a written constitution could prevent this and make Parliament and democracy more accountable to themselves and the public.
Parliamentary sovereignty is slowly diminishing in Britain, and a written constitution would not only decrease Government sovereignty but also increase sovereignty of the electorate and the judicial system. Presently, if the Government want to modify or add to the unwritten constitution, they can do it simply by passing an Act; this may suggest that we have an elective dictatorship in theory where the Government exercises a predominant influence over Britain. An inflexible, rigid written constitution would evolve more power into the people and the courts and disperse the sovereign powers of decision-making and patronage of the Executive. This would be especially beneficial with Europe in mind; Britain is the only member in the EU without a written constitution, and a written constitution may increase our sovereignty within Europe.
A written constitution would allow the British people to appeal to the courts with a written document to back up their claims; a codified document is a point of reference and the public will be able to read and understand our constitution a considerable amount more than they do presently. A written constitution could be taught in schools; this would not only increase their insight into politics but also encourage them to respect the laws included in the constitution.
A recent survey conducted by pressure group Charter 88 suggested that 70% of people are in favour of a written constitution, which is an advantage in itself, as it would have the British people’s consent. An entrenched codified constitution would also be an advantage to the British Judicial system, as laws would be clearly defined so judges would be able to recognise when laws are broken, and make fairer decisions.
Analyse the advantages of an uncodified constitution.
Our present constitution may contain many sources, but there is no denying that our constitution does work; Britain has a successful judicial system and a democratic Parliament, and even though it may run in a different way than a country with a written constitution such as America, it certainly is not less prosperous and flourishing than the US.
Most people in Britain do not even know what the constitution is, and if a written constitution was to be brought about with extra taxes to pay for referendums and implementation of the document many people will oppose it. Generally, the British people are opposed to radical change, and many people have shown outrage over devolution, the abolition of hereditary peers, the Human Rights Act, and many more issues; there could not be anything much more radical than introducing a written constitution into Britain.
The final disadvantage of introducing a written constitution into Britain is that the supposed inflexible and rigid nature of written constitutions of other countries is often open to amendments when laws are out dated. Unless our constitution declared that the constitution could not be amended, there is danger that laws may need to be changed and it would not be possible. If we adopted a written constitution and amended it whenever necessary, there would hardly be any difference to the present constitutional system.
An uncodified constitution is Flexible - UK does not need a complicated procedure to change it unlike in the USA, parliament can change our constitution when the electorate votes for change e.g. devolution, codified constitution may become outdated e.g. USA? Right to own guns since 18th century.
An uncodified constitution works - British democracy is one of the strongest in the world.
An uncodified constitution does not require a supreme court - if a state has a codified constitution, it must have a supreme court, a court that interprets the constitution. The problem with that is that it brings judges into disputes with the legislature (parliament) and executive (government).
Maintenance of tradition of an uncodified constitution - many people value the monarch and House of Lords, which would be questioned with a new court.
There is only one disadvantage to a uncodified constitution. That is the Lack of entrenchment (fix firmly) - government can change constitution as it wishes due to principle of parliamentary sovereignty e.g. again, Thatcher in 1986 abolishing GLC party and metropolitan councils.
